medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
John Wickstrom wrote:
>
> But that statement suggests that because there is no support, the
> perpetual virginity of Mary is unlikely. Whereas it could be equally
> said (and with the opposite bias suggested ) there is no NT evidence
> AGAINST the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. So Mr. Cane's
> formulation: "the text is not conclusive" seems the most accurate and
> neutral.
That's with the benefit of hindsight, after the doctrine had been concocted.
What we can say is that Matthew wasn't aware of it, otherwise he wouldn't
have written what he wrote. Just as his major source, Mark, wasn't aware of
the virgin birth, otherwise he wouldn't have written what he wrote. Paul
wasn't aware of it either, or he wouldn't have written what he wrote in
Galatians.
John Briggs
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|